Are m4/3 cameras too expensive when you…

well, first and foremost, let's be fair to M4/3 and other mirrorless. Quality cost, and this is not just M4/3. Quality Lens that truly deliver quality image cost and that's the case with whatever system. But yes there is some true in the statement primarily ( and this is not M4/3 specific but also apply to other mirrorless ) because of the way the Mfrs do their lens ( and their lens pricing ).

And that's why I have always figure the mirrorless need also another lineup of lens that are catered for quality ( optically ) instead of compactness and I am not talking about fast expensive lens either. So instead of a compact 14-42 kit zoom or the 20mm/1.7, can we just have something like a decent 21mm/2.0 fully optically corrected. No it won't be a slim as the 20 but its likely still be able to be sized like the zoom but offer that 1.5 stop of speed and likely can be made to perform even at wide open. That same argument can apply to a sort as demonstrated by the Oly 45mm/1.8 , and quality can be had within reasonable cost ( provided we do not ask for speed and build at the same instance ) witness the Sigma 30mm and 19mm f/2.8

In fairness to the Mfrs again though, one must realize that there are very very few lens that are designed and capable to deliver truly across the field / even field performance at wide open and most would demand stopping down a slot or 2 to perform at their highest. And that's why fast fix focals also highly cherished by photographers then and now. A lens with f/2.0 , even stopped down by 2 , still give f/4.0 where a lens that say give that same coverage at f/4.0 would require f/8.0 ( which on M4/3 starts to challenge the diffraction limit ). That f/4.0 , aka 2 stop of light also might mean using ISO 800 vs that of using ISO 3200 , a not insignificant imaging advantage obviously.